I'm not trying to revert the downvotes or convince users that it was a good question. I'm trying to understand what (if anything at all) can be improved.
The (now auto-deleted) question was: Can data from sperm donors theoretically be used for the development of biological weapons
Was it SciFi?
When it comes to biology I'm nearly completely illiterate. So perhaps I've made stupid mistakes that make it a very bad question. Fair enough. A user in the comments tried to explain that my reasoning about HIV is flawed, but gave up since apparently I lack basic knowledge. (offtopic: if someone could shed some light on what he meant in his last comment, I'd appreciate it)
On the other hand, the following claim that ethnic bioweapons are a possibility:
[...] some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races
[..]So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.
A: [...] we also have the possibility of targeting specific ethnic groups of specific genetic subtypes, if you like, of the population, that you can indiscriminately, in a way, spray something, but it only kills the certain people that this material is designed to find and attack.
Q: Science fiction, surely?
A: Well, what's often science fiction today is science fact tomorrow and I think that's not saying anything new. It may be right now, and in a way, I'm glad if it is. What worries me is tomorrow, and intelligence is, I hope, about trying to predict what's happening next.
Guardian, 28 Oct 2004 (couldn't find access to the BMA report they refer to):
The report, Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity II, [by the British Medical Association (BMA)] warns that construction of genetic weapons "is now approaching reality". Such "genetic bombs" could contain anthrax or bubonic plague tailored to activate only when genes indicated the infected person was from a particular group.
And finally, Russia Today (which I included in my original question, since it was the only thing I had ever read about ethnic bioweapons, up until this Meta question):
But Igor Nikulin, a former member of the UN commission on biological weapons, noted that the RNA samples can be used to develop viruses.
[...] trying to develop various types of biological weapons specifically for specific carriers of this gene pool, and Caucasoids are needed since they constitute the majority of the population of our country.
“This is the same focus group for which they are trying to find the samples. It’s necessary for the viruses to act selectively on one or another ethnic group.”
So it might not be possible yet, but it's definitely a future possibility that the top agencies take very seriously. So, not SciFi but rather "theoretically possible".
Then, perhaps theoretical questions aren't perceived well?
118 questions with the word "theoretically" in them, some of which sound much more wild than research on ethnic bioweapons, makes me think this isn't the problem with my question either.
In particular, only 1 downvoted question (the other is my question).
A user suggested I post it on SkepticsSE instead
That's a site about debunking myths. Not sure how Skeptics would be better fit. Also, Skeptics has at times some not so impressive answers. I'd rather ask biologists about my biology question.
The term "ethnic group"
Did that cause confusion? I copied it from the above sources. Should I change it to something more suitable? I'm unfamiliar with biology terminology. (Nevermind, term seems to be widely used) Was the term deemed politically incorrect?
"RT is a propaganda outlet of the russian government"
Was my question poorly received because many people thought I'm conducting propaganda for Russia? Or against the US? Russia Today is indeed doing propaganda, just like every single media outlet. This is why I used its full name. Also, I hadn't researched thoroughly at the time I asked the question, so I couldn't include sources alternative to RT (eg. the ones above).
If the issue is political, I'd gladly edit the question.
Why exactly was my question downvoted and how can I improve the question?